1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
NAPOLEON GODOY,
Petitioner,
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
11
12
13
No. C 10-1121 WHA (PR)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
v.
CURRY, Warden,
Respondent.
/
14
INTRODUCTION
15
16
Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
17
challenging the denial of parole pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Respondent was ordered to show
18
cause why the writ should not be granted. Respondent filed an answer, and petitioner filed a
19
traverse. For the reasons discussed below, the petition is DENIED.
STATEMENT
20
21
In 1993, petitioner was convicted of second-degree murder in Los Angeles County
22
Superior Court, and he was sentenced to a term of nineteen years to life in state prison. In 2008,
23
the California Board of Parole Hearings (“Board) found petitioner unsuitable for parole.
24
Petitioner challenged this decision in unsuccessful habeas petitions filed in all three levels of the
25
California courts.
26
27
28
ANALYSIS
Petitioner claims that the denial of parole violated his right to due process because there
was not at least “some evidence” that he would be a danger to society if released. The United
Amendment to the United States Constitution entitles a California prisoner to only “minimal”
3
procedural protections in connection with a parole suitability determination. Swarthout v
4
Cooke, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862 (2011). Specifically, the Due Process Clause only entitles a
5
California prisoner to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of the reasons why parole was
6
denied. Ibid. The transcript of the parole hearing indicates that he had an opportunity to be
7
heard and was given a statement of the reasons parole was denied (see Resp. Ex. 1, Ex. A). The
8
Constitution does not require more. Ibid. The court explained that no Supreme Court case
9
“supports converting California’s ‘some evidence’ rule into a substantive federal requirement.”
10
Ibid. It is simply irrelevant in federal habeas review "whether California's 'some evidence' rule
11
For the Northern District of California
States Supreme Court has recently held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
2
United States District Court
1
of judicial review (a procedure beyond what the Constitution demands) was correctly applied."
12
Id. at 863. In light of the Supreme Court’s determination that due process does not require that
13
there be any amount of evidence to support the parole denial, petitioner’s claim challenging the
14
sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Board’s decision is without merit.
15
CONCLUSION
16
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
17
Section 2254 Cases now requires a district court to rule on whether a petitioner is entitled to a
18
certificate of appealability in the same order in which the petition is denied. Petitioner has
19
failed to make a substantial showing that his claims amounted to a denial of his constitutional
20
rights or demonstrate that a reasonable jurist would find the denial of his claim debatable or
21
wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Consequently, no certificate of
22
appealability is warranted in this case.
23
The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
Dated: November
14
, 2011.
26
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
G:\PRO-SE\WHA\HC.10\GODOY1121.RUL.wpd
28
2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.